Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1981/04/22 MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 22,1981 A regular business meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue. Commissioners present:* Pressutti, G. Johnson, R. Johnson, O'Neill, Stevenson and Williams Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Director of Planning Peterson, Principal Planner Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust, Assistant City Attorney Harron and Secretary Mapes. *The resignation of Wayne Smith from the Planning Commission was accepted by the City Council on April 14, 1981. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Pressutti, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The minutes of the meeting of April 8, 1981 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Pressutti called for oral communications and none were presented. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-81-F - Consideration of rezonin~ 290 "H" Street from R-3 to C-O, Jeanne Campbell and Myron & Betty Dalseth Director of Planning Peterson reported that the application filed with the city requested rezoning from R-3 to C-O for property measuring 75' x 290' fronting on "H" Street. The adjacent property to the east is zoned R-3 and developed with apartments. The property to the west is also zoned R-3 and is used as a parking lot for the bank on the corner of "H" Street and Third Avenue, which is in the C-O. To avoid an intermittent zoning pattern the City included the two intervening lots to the west of the applicant's property for consideration of rezoning from R-3 to C-O. Since the property at 290 "H" Street abuts residential development it is recommended that the Precise Plan District be applied to that property with three guidelines for development of the site. The guidelines would limit building construction to three stories, or 35 feet in height; would require a 25 foot setback from the east and south property lines for any building exceeding one story, or 12 feet in height; and seek the retention of as many specimen trees as possible. -2- April 22, 1981 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John Sipula, 268 Vista Street, expressed his opposition to the change of zoning and to increased commercial uses on "H" Street. The property east of Third Avenue has been residential for many years and he contended it should remain that way, as commercial development would create unnecessary traffic in the area. Myron Dalseth, one of the owners of the property, expressed the opinion that an office use would add very little additional traffic as compared to an apartment complex which could be constructed on the site. He felt the location of the court complex and bank support a continuation of office development in that area. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stevenson expressed the opinion that the 25 ft. setback for a building two stories or higher is excessive; he suggested that requirement apply only to a three story building, rather than two stories. Commissioner R. Johnson asserted the City needs to be more sensitive when commercial development will abut a residential area. Since the developer has not raised objection to the guidelines, it is assumed he is designing a building to those standards. MSUC (O'Neill-G. Johnson) The Commission finds that this rezoning will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the Negative Declaration on IS-81-34. MSUC (O'Neill-G. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the report for the application of the Precise Plan Modifying District, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of the property at 290 "H" Street from R-3 to C-O-P, and for the two adjacent parcels to the west from R-3 to C-O, with the following precise plan guidelines: a. No building shall exceed three stories or 35 feet in height. b. A 25 foot setback shall be maintained from the easterly and southerly property lines for any building exceeding one story or 12 feet in height. The setback for buildings of one story, not exceeding 12 feet in height, shall be 10 feet from the south property line and 5 feet from the easterly property line. c. Development of the property shall take into consideration the existing trees on the site in order that as many specimen trees as practical may be retained. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-81-6 - Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 81-6, Otay Valley Industrial park, 30 industrial lots, 500 block of Otay Valley Road Principal Planner Lee pointed out the location of the 40 acre site north of Otay Valley Road and west of Maxwell Road. The sanitary land fill is located to the north and east of this site and the Darling-Delaware plant is to the west. The southerly three-fourths of this site has been used for farming operations. -3- April 22, 1981 The proposed map will subdivide the site into 29 industrial lots ranging in size from one-half acre to three acres. There will be two east-west streets within the industrial park and a north-south street adjacent to the west property line. The developer attempted to acquire the triangular shaped lot that abuts Otay Valley Road at the south side of the subject property, but was unable to do so. Approval of the map is recommended subject to 16 conditions, including some offsite improvements for Otay Valley Road and Maxwell Road, for which the developer may request the formation of a reimbursement district. Although the sewer capacity for this area is 60% utilized, Senior Civil Engineer Daoust advised that the City presently has no plans for increasing that capacity. If that becomes necessary an assessment district would be formed with participation by all sites being served. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Eugene Cook, engineer for the project, advised that the developer is in agreement with the conditions except for the requirement of widening Otay Valley Road where their property does not front on the road. He felt that both the road improvements and the acquisition of the necessary right of way for the widening could be quite costly, since the adjacent owner has not shown an interest in selling or developing his land. He believed the traffic load on that section of Otay Valley Road is not too high and asked to have that condition deleted. In response to a question from the Commission, Engineer Daoust advised that the reason for the requirement for widening Otay Valley Road was two-fold: First, to provide an area for transitioning to allow vehicles coming from Maxwell Road to blend in with the traffic on Otay Valley Road; and second, to provide the capability for striping within Otay Valley Road to permit left turn pockets at Maxwell Road and at the additional entrance road at the west end of this project. While the traffic load on Otay Valley Road is presently fairly light, it was determined that approximately an equal amount of traffic would be generated by this project, thus doubling the present load. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (G. Johnson-Williams) The Commission finds that this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopts the conditioned Negative Declaration on IS-81-24. MS (G. Johnson-Williams) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Commis- sion recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Otay Valley Industrial Park, Chula Vista Tract 81-6, subject to the 16 conditions listed in the report. MS (R. Johnson-O'Neill) The motion be amended to eliminate conditions "d" and "e" relating to the acquisition, dedication and improvement of additional right-of- way for the northerly half of Otay Valley Road. Engineer Daoust affirmed that if those conditions are deleted the owner of the triangular shaped parcel would bear the brunt of improvement costs if his land is developed. He felt that with some effort a reimbursement district could be formed so that this developer could recover a portion of the cost. -4- April 22, 1981 The motion for the amendment failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson and O'Neill NOES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Williams, Pressutti and Stevenson ABSENT: None The original motion for approval of the tentative map with 16 conditions carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-81-7 - Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 81-7, Pepper Tree Estates, 15 single family lots, 0-100 Pepper Tree Road Director of Planning Peterson reported that this map involves a 7.3 acre property which is in the County and in the process of being annexed to the City. It is proposed to divide the site into 15 single family lots varying from 13,000 to 22,000 sq. ft. in size. Access is from Pepper Tree and more directly off Jacaranda Drive, a private street. A new private cul-de-sac street, to be known as Cook Court, will be extended from Jacaranda Drive to serve 13 lots; two lots will have frontage on Pepper Tree Drive and take access directly from that street. The subdivision has been designed to minimize the amount of grading required and to avoid disturbing as many trees as possible. It is the developer's intent to build several homes, and to sell the remaining lots for custom building after street improvements have been installed. Although some opposition to the development was expressed during the public hearing on the environmental impact report, Mr. Peterson believed the changes that would be brought about by this subdivision would be in character with other developments in this area, since the development proposed will be low density. Concern has also been expressed about traffic and sight distance problems at Pepper Tree Drive and Jacaranda. That problem has been addressed in the conditions for approval by requiring that the sight distance shall be cleared to the east a distance of 250 feet from the intersection. The City's Traffic Engineer has investigated the site and recommended that condition; he would not support having an additional access road intersect Pepper Tree Drive. Mr. Peterson called attention to the 18 conditions recommended for approval of the tentative map and directed that in condition "d'' the word, "shall" be changed to read, "may be required by the City Engineer to "and also that in condition "0" the last sentence the phrase "which trees are ~o~t~ preserving," be changed to read, "which trees shall be preserved." This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Richard Grabhorn of Sholders and Sanford, San Diego, engineers for the development, advised they wish to seek relief from three of the conditions. Condition "e" requires sight distance for 250 feet, which would accommodate 37 to 38 miles per hour speed, whereas Pepper Tree Drive is designated for 25 miles an hour. They would be willing to make a commitment for 25 miles an hour speed in a sight distance of approximately 175 feet. Condition "h" requires the construction of curb and gutter along Pepper Tree Drive for a distance of 145 feet in front of lots 14 and I5. Since that would be the only curbing in that vicinity he asked -5- April 22, 1981 that the condition be waived and ADMA would agree to participate in an assessment district if the entire area was so improved. Condition "o" related to the alignment of Cook Court to retain as many trees as possible; Mr. Grabhorn asked for clarification or deletion of that condition. Ben Layton, 430 Jacaranda, asked what will be done about the drainage problem which exists. He contended that replacing the natural growth on the area with concrete and buildings will increase the runoff. He also avowed that the actual travel on Pepper Tree Drive is closer to 40 miles an hour than 25 miles an hour. Aaron Mannis, 446 Jacaranda Drive, asserted that the proposed development is at a higher density than would be permitted if the area remained in the county, and that such density will change the character of the area. Lawrence Lassman, 471 Jacaranda Drive, requested that the Commission require a private access point to this development rather than using Jacaranda. He suggested that an access road between lots 14 and 15 would be preferable to tripling the amount of traffic adjacent to the front yards of the existing homes. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Pressutti asked if conditions "a", "b" and "c", addressing drainage will mitigate the existing problems. Mr. Peterson affirmed that the existing problem of drainage will be alleviated with the construction of this tract. In response to questions, Mr. Peterson also advised that the Traffic Engineer is firm in his recommendation that a 250 foot sight distance is necessary for safety. He also asserted that the owner of the subject property has rights over the private road--Jacaranda Drive--because that is the only access to his property. The Commission discussed the numerous conditions and possible alternatives. Commissioner G. Johnson expressed support for using the Jacaranda Drive access pointing out that the developer will be required to improve that street which will make it safer than the existing condition. MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends that the City Council certify that EIR-81-2 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista. MSUC (Stevenson-R. Johnson) Based on the findings stated in the report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Pepper Tree Estates, Chula Vista Tract 81-7, subject to the conditions enumerated in the report with the modification to conditions "d" and "o" as requested by Mr. Peterson. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Recertification of EIR-79-2 on Bonita Long Canyon Estates b. Consideration of Candidate CEQA findings on Bonita Long Canyon development Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that since the original certification of this environmental impact report in 1979 the applicant has -6- April 22, 1981 submitted Sectional Planning Area plans which differ from the original plan. The revisions include a change in the phasing of the development, deletion of access to Acacia, elimination of the equestrian center and the addition of dwelling units in that area, and a redesign of the elementary school and park areas. The proposal also includes retention basins to control downstream runoff. Mr. Reid requested that a change be made in the Candidate CEQA findings, on page 8, under Phase I development, a reference is made to signalization of the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Canyon Drive. That would not be done as part of Phase I of the project, but would be done at a later time with City signalization fees. The reference should be deleted. Chairman Pressutti opened the public hearing to consider recertification of the EIR and the Candidate CEQA findings. John Riess, Sweetwater Valley Community Planning Group, noted that the plan has been changed in several significant areas, including the desilting and retention basins, and the traffic circulation has been altered. He asserted that the traffic impact will be worse and that the report does not indicate the precise location of those serious problems or analyze them as necessary under CEQA. He called attention to the ADMA Corporations development at Otay Lakes Road and Bonita Road, which is currently under way, and will add to the already heavily congested traffic at that intersection. He also advised that the County has tentatively approved a major mobile home park to be located to the east, for which the only access is on Central Avenue and then to Bonita Road. He suggested that a supplemental EIR is required for this traffic impact. Dick Brown, representing the Gersten Company, proponents of the project, spoke of their efforts over the past two years to allay the concerns expressed by residents over the original plan. Mr. Brown asked that the following changes be considered in the Candidate CEQA findings, bearing in mind that in Candidate findings the concern is not the design of the project, but to be sure there are not adverse impacts. He pointed out that finding No. 2 indicates that Otay Lakes Road shall be widened to four travel lanes between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. He believed that what is critical is that it be adequate to handle the traffic and requested that it be changed to read: "Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road shall be improved to adequately accommodate increased traffic from the proposed project." In the same finding, under Phase III it says, "Central Avenue shall be improved to a four lane configuration from Corral Canyon Road to Bonita Road." He requested that the wording be changed to read, "Central Avenue from Corral Canyon Road to Bonita Road shall be improved to adequately accommodate the increased traffic from the proposed project?' Under Phase IV it states, "Corral Canyon Road shall be extended to East "H" Street." To avoid any misunderstanding he suggested that it be changed to read "Corral Canyon Road be extended south to "H" Street." Mr. Brown called attention to finding No. 3, relating to drainage, and the state- ment which reads, "An alternative to this system would be an offsite downstream facility which could cost over $700,000." He requested that a statement be added for clarification to read, "If this alternative is adopted the developer would be required to pay his proportional share." -7- April 22, 1981 He asked that the Commission consider those changes to the Candidate findings. He expressed the opinion that the EIR is adequate as recommended for recertification. Cecil Hunt, 1621 Dartmouth Street, commented on Mr. Brown's request to change the phrase from ~'four lanes" to "whatever is adequate," and suggested it be "four lanes or whatever is adequate." He believes four lanes would be the minimum to handle the traffic. Jack Swift, 1639 Mill Street, also spoke against the use of the word "adequate," which he contended is fuzzy, and the requirement should be stated as four lanes. In response to questions from Chairman Pressutti, Mr. Reid concurred with the added sentence that the developer should pay his proportional share of the offsite downstream facilities, also with the addition of the word "south" to East "H" Street. Mr. Reid advised that in discussing the finding relating to traffic with the Traffic Engineer it was pointed out that the EIR identifies four lanes as being the configuration that would adequately handle the traffic and this is the wording the Traffic Engineer wants in the finding. The public hearing was declared closed on the items of the EIR and Candidate CEQA findings. Commissioner O'Neill commented that the two most serious problems are drainage and traffic and neither has been adequately addressed in the EIR. MS (Stevenson-Williams) The Commission recertifies that EIR-79-2 was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, Williams, R. Johnson, Pressutti and G. Johnson NAY: Commissioner O'Neill ABSENT: None MS (Stevenson-R. Johnson) The Commission recommends the adoption of the Candidate CEQA findings as proposed, with the deletion recommended by Mr. Reid of the reference to the signalization of the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Canyon Drive, and the addition at the bottom of page 3, "If adopted, the developer will be assessed a proportional share," and revision on page 8 of the last sentence under Phase III to read "Corral Canyon Road shall be extended south to East "H" Street." The motion carried by a vote of 5-1, with Commissioner O'Neill voting "NO". The meeting recessed at 8:55 p.m. and was reconvened at 9:05 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: c. Development plan of Bonita Long Canson Sectional Planning Area d. Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 81-4, Bonita Long Canyon Estates Principal Planner Lee recommended holding the public hearings on the 650 acre Sectional Planning Area plan and the tentative subdivision map covering the first phase of the development simultaneously with separate action by the Commission on each of the proposals. -8- April 22, 1981 Using slides Mr. Lee displayed an aerial photo of the overall area as well as photos taken at ground level showing the varying terrain of the site. The first development phase, which is under consideration in this hearing, will be adjacent to the extension of East "H" Street and to Bonita High School. Individual subdivision maps will be considered for the remaining phases at a later date. The Sectional Planning Area plan will set the parameters for development, including lot patterns and circulation. The total project includes 809 single family lots, a number of open space areas, an elementary school site and adjacent park site, and the developer has requested a 56 unit condominium project adjacent to Otay Lakes Road, just east of Bonita Vista Junior High School. Mr. Lee advised that the E1 Rancho del Rey General Development Plan indicated a total of 650 units in this area, and the Chula Vista General Plan allows a density of 1-3 units to the acre for the majority of the site, or a range of 800 to 2400 dwelling units for the total area. The proposed plan is at the lower end of that range. The staff is satisfied that the developer has addressed environmental issues and this density is suitable for the area. Mr. Lee displayed slides of each phase of development, noting the access points, circulation within the site and the number of units proposed. He pointed out that this development abuts both City and County areas that have been developed with one-half to one acre lot sizes, which have had sizes varying from 8,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. The pad sizes proposed in this development are 6,000 to 7,000 square feet. It is recommended that in Phases II and V the pad areas be a minimum of 8,000 square feet, and that Phases III and IV, which are closer to "H" Street be allowed to use 7,000 square foot pads. There should be a relation- ship to developments already existing for standards of lot width, depth and setbacks. The developer has proposed a 56 unit condominium project, but it is recommended that the density be reduced to 20 units to be similar to the adjacent Bonita View Terraces condominium development. Mr. Lee noted the staff recommendation that Phase II be limited to 81 units due to the length of the cul-de-sac street. The applicant has requested that 24 additional units be included in that development phase and the staff feels this would not present a problem. Mr. Lee advised that a site for an elementary school is shown in the Phase III development area. Inasmuch as two elementary schools in adjacent areas are at capacity, the elementary school district may require dedication of land and a contribution to furnish portable classroom facilities. The district has indicated they wish to wait until a tentative map is filed for that area before making a determination as to whether they want a school site in that location. The location of the park site would be contingent upon the location of the school; if it is located at that site it should be enlarged to cover the developer's full responsibility for park land, after credit is given for regrading a portion of Tiffany Park as a result of extending East "H" Street. An equestrian trails system is shown on the plans to tie in with the County system. Much of the open space will be left in a natural state and fire retardant plant material will be required on the rear of lots abutting such open space. Manicured landscaping will be installed along Corral Canyon Road and along "H" Street. -9- April 22, 1981 Mr. Lee discussed the tentative map for Phase I, which includes 199 units on 81.5 acres. Extensive grading will occur with this phase of development although 25 acres of open space will be retained in the canyon. The density is similar to that in the adjacent Southwestern College Estates tract and the lots adjacent to "H" Street have been widened to correspond with the pattern of the existing development. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Lee again reviewed the access for the various development phases as follows: Phase I has primary access to East "H" Street and Baylor Avenue; Phase II has primary access to Otay Lakes Road; Phase III will use Corral Canyon Drive to Central Avenue or to East "H" Street; Phase IV would be the same; Phase V would have access to Corral Canyon Road and to East "H" Street, and if the County permits, a connection to the west; Phase VI will take direct access from Otay Lakes Road. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing to consider the Sectional Planning Area plan and the tentative map for Chula Vista Tract 81-4 was opened. Dick Brown, representing the Gersten Company, pointed out this development plan for 650 acres includes 266 acres of open space, so it is a very open plan and is designed to be sensitive to the rugged terrain. He noted that the staff report indicates the school site is less than the minimum 9 acres required by the school; he stated the school site can be increased to 9.6 acres without deleting any lots. He also asserted the park site can be increased to provide 5 acres of usable area without eliminating any lots. He expressed opposition to the elimination of 8 lots as recommended by the staff. Mr. Brown raised objection to lowering the number of condominium units from 56 to 20, and to the establishment of minimum pad areas and dimensions under item 9 prior to the filing of tentative maps for the various phases. He pointed out that the street connection required in item 11 is shown on a tentative map and the street may never be constructed. He also requested that item 20.a relating to horizontal curves be amended to add: "except where specifically changed through the approval of a tentative map." Mr. Brown raised objection to extending Corral Canyon Road south of "H" Street to connect to Rutgers Avenue, under item 23.a, and to improving the south side of East "H" Street under item 23.b. Under item 23.e he questioned whether the street lights would be located at the side of the road or in the median island. With reference to conditions relating to the tentative map, Mr. Brown requested that condition 34 be amended to require that "constructing a portion of the Long Canyon drainage basin occupied by the project as determined by the City Engineer of Chula Vista. "rather than by the "County of San Diego, Department of Public Works." He also requested that condition 38 relative to the improvement of a portion of the Corral Canyon-East "H" Street intersection be deferred until Phase III development is considered. In considering objections raised by Mr. Brown to requirements for the Sectional Planning Area plan, the Commission concluded that those requirements should be adopted as guidelines relating to the entire development area, and specific conditions would be adopted as tentative maps are considered. -10- April 22, 1981 Mr. Brown expressed concurrence with that revision in the wording under the recommendation for approval. Martha McDonald, 4425 Acacia Avenue, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, reported that two of their initial concerns expressed during the hearing on the EIR in 1979 have been eliminated by the closing of Acacia Avenue to traffic from this development and the deletion of the equestrian center originally proposed. Their primary concern at this time is over drainage. Through the use of an area plat displayed on the projector, she noted the location of a shallow channel which runs behind the houses located on the south side of Acacia and must carry the run-off from this canyon basin. She reported that channel is filled with silt in some areas to a depth of 5 feet, so little capacity remains for carrying flood waters. She requested deletion of item 11 under the Sectional Planning Area requirements since traffic using that connection would end up on Tim Street and back to Acacia Avenue. In response to a question from Mrs. McDonald, it was affirmed that the retention basins will be maintained as part of the open space district. She also asked about the maintenance of landscaped slopes adjacent to Acacia. Dan Cunya, 1641 Dartmouth, objected the use of Baylor Avenue as the primary access for a portion of the Phase I development. He pointed out that Baylor now serves 35 to 40 houses and adding 66 additional homes would triple the amount of traffic on that street, which he contended is not adequate to handle that volume and that another alternative should be considered. Cecil Hunt, 1621 Dartmouth Street, expressed concern that during the construction of the project, material and equipment trucks would experience difficulty in turning the corner at Dartmouth and Auburn in order to reach Baylor Avenue and this would create a dangerous situation. Jack Swift pointed out that houses on the north side of Mill Street, abutting the canyon, presently enjoy a nice view of San Diego Bay, Coronado, and Point Loma. He asked if this plan has addressed the preservation of those views. Susan Taylor, 1630 Elmhurst, reported she has been waiting 11 years for "H" Street to be put through, but traffic is still using Elmhurst to get in and out of the tract. Martin Marugg, 1634 Mills Street, objected to additional traffic through the area and felt this developer should provide another access to the new development. Stanley Parkins, 766 Baylor Avenue, added his objection to the use of Baylor as an access into the proposed development. Dick Brown contended that the park site could be increased to 5 acres without the deletion of 8 lots as recommended in the report. He raised objection to extending Rutgers Avenue south of "H" Street and to improving the south side of "H" Street. Ben Helfries, 1635 Mills Street, objected to development if it blocked the view of the present residents. -11- April 22, 1981 Mary Jansen, 1615 Mills Street, expressed concern that construction trucks through the residential area would be damaging to the streets. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Pressutti suggested that in light of the information received during the public hearing on the Sectional Planning Area plan and the tentative map, the Commission should reconsider whether the EIR and Candidate CEQA findings are appropriate and adequate to cover the development. MS (Stevenson-R. Johnson) Considering the testimony and information presented relating to the project, the Commission recertifies that EIR-79-2 was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and adopts the Candidate CEQA findings as earlier amended. The motion carried by a vote of 5-1, with Commissioner O'Neill voting "no". MS (G. Johnson-Stevenson) The Commission approves the Sectional Planning Area plan for Bonita Long Canyon, subject to the guidelines listed in the report, with the following revisions: No. 5 will read, "The park site shall be increased in size to approximately 5 acres and provide public exposure to the park site from street "P"; condition 6 be changed to read "Further changes" instead of "reductions"; condition 20.j (3) should read "52 foot right of way"; condition 20 relating to street design should include the phrase, "except where specifically changed on the tentative map"; and the requirement should be added to condition 3 that "The rear slope banks of lots abutting Acacia Avenue and the Long Canyon drainage system located in Phase III shall be included as dedicated open space to insure maintenance." In discussion of the motion, Commissioner Williams expressed concern about listing all of the requirements as guidelines rather than conditions as many of them will have to be repeated in approving the tentative map for the various phases of the development. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Stevenson, Pressutti and R. Johnson NOES: Commissioners Williams and O'Neill ABSENT: None With regard to the tentative subdivision map, Commissioner Stevenson asked for a review and clarification of the access and traffic pattern for the various portions of the development. Principal Planner Lee pointed out that 66 units at the east end of the project would have access directly to East "H" Street and would not be connected to the remainder of the project. Of the 133 lots further to the west, it is recommended that 67 of the lots most readily accessible from Baylor Avenue be permitted to develop based on that access, but that lots 15 through 83 would not be developed until the connection to Otay Lakes Road is completed. Mr. Lee discussed street widths and the probable traffic pattern that would be used by residents of this development, pointing out that the access used would probably depend on the ultimate direction of destination--toward the north, or south to Telegraph Canyon Road. -12- April 22, 1981 Commissioner Stevenson asked the developer's representative if he would object to making development of the westerly portion contingent upon access to Otay Lakes Road. Mr. Brown advised they would prefer not to have that condition, but if the Commission feels it is appropriate and necessary, they would not object. MS (Stevenson-R. Johnson) Based on the findings in the report, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Bonita Long Canyon Estates, Chula Vista Tract 81-4, subject to the conditions enumerated in the report with the following revisions: Condition 4 be amended to indicate that building permits for lots I through 133 shall not be issued until the connection from Via Hacienda to Otay Lakes Road is completed; condition 34 be changed to specify the Chula Vista City Engineer rather than the County of San Diego; condition 38 be deleted; a condition be added to require that the development shall adhere to R-1 zoning standards as listed in the code; and a condition added that all guidelines approved for the Sectional Planning Area plan that are applicable to Phase I development shall apply. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, R. Johnson, Pressutti and G. Johnson NOES: Commissioners O'Neill and Williams ABSENT: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Peterson had no report. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Pressutti noted that the Mayor had asked the staff to contact people who are motor home enthusiasts and advised that he has two names to submit for such contact. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Pressutti adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. to the meeting of May 13, 1981. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretary